In claiming that the climate models have been falsified, this post errs. A model that predicts is susceptible to falsification. A model that projects is insusceptible to falsification. The climate models project. They do not predict.

Often, in the literature of climatology, authors treat "predict" and "project" as synonyms in making arguments, though the two words have differing meanings. Such an argument is an example of an equivocation. By logical rule, one cannot properly draw a conclusion from an equivocation. To draw a conclusion, including the conclusion that a "prediction" is falsified, is an example of an equivocation fallacy.

For details on the equivocation fallacy in global warming arguments, see the peer-reviewed article at http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7923 .

Looking at the 73 different IPCC climate models, since they all get different results, without even considering reality, they are all verifying that each one is wrong. Looks like they all guessed wrong. How much money was spent on this guess work?

The models used by IPCC are "not even wrong" since they exclude important climate variables such as the AMO, PDO and effects of EuV variability on the upper atmosphere. In fact, they don't include much of the atmosphere above the tropopause in the models at all.

Terry:The climate models have been falsified at >98% certainty by comparing models' hindcasts with actual observation. The hindcasts used actual GHG concentrations and other forcings, not projections or predictions of forcings.See: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=680

The appearance that the climate models have been falsified is not matched by the reality. A model is falsified when the predicted relative frequencies of the outcomes of events fail to match the observed relative frequencies. For the IPCC climate models there are no events, hence are no outcomes or relative frequencies. The misleading appearance that the models have been falsified is based upon applications of the equivocation fallacy wherein the term "predicted" (among many other terms) is polysemic.

Storch: The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.

SPIEGEL: But it has been climate researchers themselves who have feigned a degree of certainty even though it doesn't actually exist. For example, the IPCC announced with 95 percent certainty that humans contribute to climate change.

Storch: Of course, that evidence presupposed that we had correctly assessed the amount of natural climate fluctuation. Now that we have a new development, we may need to make adjustments.

SPIEGEL: In which areas do you need to improve the models?

Storch:, there is evidence that the oceans have absorbed more heat than we initially calculated. Temperatures at depths greater than 700 meters (2,300 feet) appear to have increased. The only unfortunate thing is that our simulations failed to predict this effect.

SPIEGEL: That doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

Storch: Certainly the greatest mistake of climate researchers has been giving the impression that they are declaring the definitive truth. The end result is foolishness.

"The forecasts in the [IPCC] Report were not the outcome of scientific procedures. In effect, they were the opinions of scientists transformed by mathematics andobscured by complex writing. Research on forecasting has shown that experts’ predictions are not useful in situations involving uncertainly and complexity. Wehave been unable to identify any scientific forecasts of global warming. Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder."